"Restoring Internet Freedom"

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby Grizzly » Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:34 pm

As we wait on the clamp down, ...

The noose tightens.

Shifting from Tasers to AI, Axon wants to use terabytes of data to automate police records and redactions
https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/atfsnu/shifting_from_tasers_to_ai_axon_wants_to_use/

“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby chump » Sat Mar 02, 2019 3:54 pm


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/ ... 5g-1230276

Trump campaign pushes government intervention on 5G

The president's reelection team is backing a plan the wireless industry fears would impose a heavy government hand over America's communications future.

By JOHN HENDEL and MARGARET HARDING MCGILL 03/01/2019 05:37 PM EST

President Donald Trump's reelection team is backing a controversial plan to give the government a role in managing America's next-generation 5G wireless networks — bucking the free market consensus view of his own administration and sparking wireless industry fears of nationalization.

The plan — embraced by Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale and adviser Newt Gingrich — would involve the government taking 5G airwaves and designing a system to allow for sharing them on a wholesale basis with wireless providers. The idea is also being pushed by a politically connected wireless company backed by venture capitalist Peter Thiel that could stand to benefit.

It's already getting pushback from industry, which dismisses the concept as untested and unworkable.

But the Trump campaign is now fully embracing the model in a bid to woo rural voters who have long lacked decent internet service because wireless companies don't have a financial incentive to offer affordable broadband to all Americans, including those outside the biggest cities.

“A 5G wholesale market would drive down costs and provide access to millions of Americans who are currently underserved,” Kayleigh McEnany, national press secretary for Trump’s 2020 campaign, told POLITICO. “This is in line with President Trump’s agenda to benefit all Americans, regardless of geography."

Trump campaign advisers aren't offering an explanation for why their position is so different from the one embraced by the Trump administration, and they say they have no financial motivations for their stance.

But the campaign's position sets up a likely policy fight with key Trump administration figures who preach an industry-led 5G vision, including White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow and members of the FCC.

The issue of government's potential role in 5G — which promises super-fast internet speeds seen as critical to U.S. economic and technology development — has already proven to be an explosive one.

At the beginning of 2018, a leaked memo from the National Security Council, which envisioned the Trump administration building a nationwide 5G network to compete with China, faced immediate rejection from the wireless industry, every FCC commissioner and lawmakers of both parties, who were alarmed at the prospect of a heavy government hand in the sector.

The White House at the time never explicitly ruled out the nationalization concept, with press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying "there are a lot of things on the table." But administration officials still scrambled to reassure the powerful wireless sector, holding a conference on 5G later in the year where Kudlow said "the White House is officially behind this free-enterprise, free-market approach."

The Trump campaign is now touting a different flavor of potential government intervention into 5G, one championed by a wireless company known as Rivada Networks.

Rivada, which counts Trump ally Thiel among its investors, is lobbying for the administration to take wireless spectrum from the Defense Department and use a third-party operator — ideally Rivada — to make those airwaves available to users who need it on a rolling wholesale basis, much like in the electricity market.

This model would differ from the current system where wireless carriers like AT&T and Verizon typically hold long-term spectrum leases secured at FCC auctions. Veteran GOP operative Karl Rove, a Rivada adviser, is helping to cultivate an informal network of advocates to push the concept.

Rivada's influence operation has sparked speculation about its role in the Trump campaign's thinking. But Parscale, one of the most vocal Trump surrogates backing the government-managed 5G plan, has no financial interest in Rivada or 5G, according to the campaign. Gingrich, who wrote an op-ed praising the "public-private" 5G model, also said he's not getting paid by the company, but finds what it wants to do "fascinating."

Rivada has requested meetings with Michael Kratsios, deputy assistant to the president for technology policy, which he has declined, according to an administration official. Kratsios previously worked for Thiel.

Trump himself issued a pair of enigmatic tweets on 5G in late February, which failed to clear up where he stands on the government's role in the next-generation networks.

“I want 5G, and even 6G, technology in the United States as soon as possible,” Trump said. “It is far more powerful, faster, and smarter than the current standard. American companies must step up their efforts, or get left behind.”

Asked about the Trump campaign's views on 5G, the White House Office of Science and Technology policy said it stands behind the current, industry-led approach. "The Trump Administration embraces any and all private sector-driven efforts to boost innovation in the United States for deploying secure 5G networks," a spokesperson said.

The FCC declined to comment.

CTIA, which represents wireless heavyweights like AT&T and Verizon, has already sought to counter the growing talk of government involvement in 5G.

"Instead of trying to ‘out-China, China’, as some proponents of a nationalized ‘wholesale’ network monopoly suggested, we reaffirmed our faith in that most American of principles — competition in a free and open market," the trade group wrote in a blog post last month.

Rivada has fallen short in its efforts to shape government policy before, despite attracting high-profile advocates including Rove and former Govs. Jeb Bush and Martin O’Malley, who serve on the board. The company failed to make inroads with the multibillion-dollar U.S. public safety communications network FirstNet, first losing the government contract to build the network to AT&T and then failing to convince states to defect to Rivada's version of the project.

But Rivada CEO Declan Ganley is maintaining a combative message when it comes to the 5G plan his company backs, blasting incumbent telecom giants as “parasites” bilking the American public.

“America should have some of the cheapest bandwidth and data available in the world and instead it’s got the most expensive pricing in the world,” he said in an interview. Of the big wireless companies, he added: “They are the ninjas of regulatory capture. … They can hire 20,000 lobbyists to our one. We’ll never out-lobby them, but the numbers don’t lie. Americans are being hosed.”

Robert Spalding, the former National Security Council official who drafted the White House memo on 5G nationalization and is now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington, sees benefits in the 5G model championed by the Trump campaign. But while it may be useful as messaging to rural voters, he said, the idea as a practical matter is dead on arrival because it would require the military to share its airwaves.

"I just don’t see it actually coming to fruition because at the end of the day, an agency like the Department of Defense would have to step up and say this is absolutely required for national security," he said. “I know that DoD has no interest in using any kind of department resources in making this a priority.”
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Mar 06, 2019 7:41 pm

Democrats Have the House. Could Net Neutrality Be Saved This Time?

April Glaser
March 06, 20194:25 PM


The Obama-era net neutrality rules that the Federal Communications Commission gutted in 2017 have one thing in common with a zombie: They’re always crawling back from the dead. On Wednesday, Democrats in the House and the Senate released new bills aimed at restoring restrictions that would prevent internet service providers, like Comcast and Verizon, from slowing down or blocking access to certain websites—or charging websites a fee to reach users at faster speeds. Thanks to the current FCC, internet providers are now allowed to do whatever they want when it comes to how you connect to parts of the web, as long as they write in their terms of service that they reserve the right to do so.

The bills, both titled the Save the Internet Act, seek to undo the deregulatory actions of the Ajit Pai–led FCC, If passed, they’d return the law to what it was before Trump was inaugurated, “as in effect January 19, 2017,” according to the legislation. Beyond prohibiting internet providers from blocking and throttling internet connections, the new bills also seek to restore how the internet is legally classified. In 2015, the Obama-era FCC updated the law to classify the internet as an essential utility like phone service, which allowed the agency to pass public-interest rules to help ensure that providers don’t discriminate about how they provide access to subscribers. But under Trump, the FCC reclassified the internet as an entertainment service like cable television, which legally disempowers the FCC from passing regulation that would protect consumers from the whims of their internet providers.

The proposed legislation comes as an appeals court in D.C. is currently deciding whether the Pai-led repeal of net neutrality was done to the letter of the law, since it occurred despite a scandal-strewn public comment process and just two years after the Obama-era rules went into effect. That case could also send the FCC back to the drawing board—or not. Whatever the outcome of the case, the issue may well remain in play for years, with each FCC undoing and redoing the rules for all eternity—unless Congress settles the law.

But that would require both chambers of Congress to, well, pass legislation that President Trump would sign. With a Republican-led Senate, that’s still a long shot. Sen. Roger Wicker of Lousiana, who chairs the Senate Commerce Committee that would consider such a bill, has long voiced his opposition to net-neutrality rules. He accused Democrats of voicing “a degree of hysteria last year that didn’t make sense and that has not turned out to be accurate” on net neutrality. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, another Republican on the committee, introduced industry-friendly “net neutrality” legislation when she was a member of the House of Representatives last year. That bill would have prohibited internet providers from blocking access to websites, but still would have allowed the companies to charge to reach users. There’s certainly a risk that any compromise with the new legislation would codify something like this into law, where internet providers aren’t allowed to outright censor websites but could decide to slow down connections to websites unless they pay up. The danger is that when a website doesn’t load right away, people tend to navigate away, and those who can afford to pay for fast-lane speeds will have an even bigger advantage.

Last year, lawmakers attempted to undo the FCC’s net neutrality repeal by passing what’s called a Congressional Review Act resolution, which allows Congress to overturn regulatory actions. The resolution narrowly passed the Republican-led Senate, thanks to three Republicans who pushed the bill over the edge, but failed to get the votes it needed in the House.

This year, with the House controlled by Democrats, advocates are hopeful that the new bills will gain traction. The telecom industry will lobby loudly and expensively to fight it. Open-internet activists will mobilize. And if the effort to revive net neutrality fails—well, there’s always the next administration for another attempt at resurrection.
https://slate.com/technology/2019/03/de ... c-pai.html
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby Grizzly » Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:11 am

https://deletefacebook.com/

of course if you use instagram or whatsapp it makes no difference.
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby DrEvil » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:43 am

^^Soon to be unified with Messenger to prevent a future anti-trust breakup. Can't split them off into separate companies when they're all intertwined and effectively the same thing.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby Grizzly » Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:32 pm

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19325302
Leaked Documents Show the U.S. Tracking Journalists Through a Secret Database

We learned the Bush Administration was targeting killing journalists; now years later they are tracking them as well. In addition, as Trump just revoked Obama order on reporting civilian deaths in drone strikes. Man this could go in several threads/posts or maybe should be it's own post?
https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/11/26/are-us-troops-targeting-journalists/

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/aydoi8/trump_revokes_obama_order_on_reporting_civilian/



https://sharylattkisson.com/new-update-attkisson-v-doj-and-fbi-for-govt-computer-intrusions/
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4722
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby Karmamatterz » Thu Apr 25, 2019 11:41 pm

https://www.thelocal.at/20190410/austri ... -platforms

Austria said Wednesday it was considering a law to make it mandatory for big internet platforms to register their users and deprive those behind hate posts of anonymity.


Those cool Europeans always are doing the right thing.

It would be up to the platforms themselves to decide the form of registration, but authorities would be able to access users' identities in case of hate postings or on suspicion of other laws being broken, he said.


Nothing at all to worry about with that. Seems like a great idea!
User avatar
Karmamatterz
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby DrEvil » Fri Apr 26, 2019 9:51 am

Karmamatterz » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:41 am wrote:https://www.thelocal.at/20190410/austria-mulls-user-registration-for-online-platforms

Austria said Wednesday it was considering a law to make it mandatory for big internet platforms to register their users and deprive those behind hate posts of anonymity.


Those cool Europeans always are doing the right thing.

It would be up to the platforms themselves to decide the form of registration, but authorities would be able to access users' identities in case of hate postings or on suspicion of other laws being broken, he said.


Nothing at all to worry about with that. Seems like a great idea!


Those cool Austrians. I don't complain about Americans whenever Bolsonaro says something outrageous, because that would be stupid.

But it is a stupid suggestion, that's for sure, although Austria does have a history of destructive hate speech, to put it mildly (*cough*Hitler*cough*). Ironically this will probably backfire, as the far right people currently in power represent those most fond of hate speech. Give it a year or two and they will be outraged that the law is used against the wrong people, and the really dedicated assholes will just use platforms outside Austrian jurisdiction and hide behind VPNs.

Austria also isn't that big of a market, so the major platforms might just say fuck it and leave.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 11:43 am

DrEvil » 26 Apr 2019 13:51 wrote:
Karmamatterz » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:41 am wrote:https://www.thelocal.at/20190410/austria-mulls-user-registration-for-online-platforms

Austria said Wednesday it was considering a law to make it mandatory for big internet platforms to register their users and deprive those behind hate posts of anonymity.


Those cool Europeans always are doing the right thing.

It would be up to the platforms themselves to decide the form of registration, but authorities would be able to access users' identities in case of hate postings or on suspicion of other laws being broken, he said.


Nothing at all to worry about with that. Seems like a great idea!


Those cool Austrians. I don't complain about Americans whenever Bolsonaro says something outrageous, because that would be stupid.

But it is a stupid suggestion, that's for sure, although Austria does have a history of destructive hate speech, to put it mildly (*cough*Hitler*cough*). Ironically this will probably backfire, as the far right people currently in power represent those most fond of hate speech. Give it a year or two and they will be outraged that the law is used against the wrong people, and the really dedicated assholes will just use platforms outside Austrian jurisdiction and hide behind VPNs.

Austria also isn't that big of a market, so the major platforms might just say fuck it and leave.


Man, you really the need an SS to fight those Nazi.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6302
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby DrEvil » Sat Apr 27, 2019 4:23 pm

Not sure what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase?
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby Karmamatterz » Mon Apr 29, 2019 3:25 pm

The Easter attacks were of a different scale, and the swift decision by the government to act against the social networks placed them in a different category—that is, the authorities were essentially saying that the social networks are no longer considered tools that can be abused by bad actors to exacerbate tensions but weapons that must be removed from terrorists immediately.


Only if it was so simple to define "hate speech."

Why not include the postal mail and all publishing in this discussion? Let's really clamp down in lockstep fascist fashion. No where in the article does it say how words can actually physically kill a person.

https://www.wired.com/story/like-guns-s ... -regulated
User avatar
Karmamatterz
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 10:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby chump » Wed Nov 20, 2019 12:18 pm

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... g-is-safe/

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks
By Joel M. Moskowitz on October 17, 2019

Image


The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.  

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.


———————


via my faavorite Aangiry Faanatic:



Mouthy Buddha

8 months ago (edited)

Here’s what you can do to limit exposure:
- As your phone company suggests, use speaker phone whenever possible.

- Use airplane mode if you intend to carry it in your pocket.

- Don’t talk with it on your ear.

This will significantly limit exposure. Phone companies measure the levels away from the source for this very reason. The levels go down dramatically every millimeter away.
As the woman in the video said “I love my iPhone, I just know not to put in on my head or on my body.”

A bit of distance is your friend.

My next video will be about rainbows.


notes:

Check out the warning on every I-phone:

Settings/General/About/Legal/RF Exposure

FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler worked for Industry lobbyists CTA and CTIA before Obama appointed him to the position in 2013.

The video displays a graph comparing allowable cell phone radiation limits in countries around the world, and the USA is remarkably higher than countries who have listened to the scientists.

Brain cancers induced by electronic radiation are said to take 20 or more years to develop in humans. Younger children are more susceptible.

Any scientist worth his salt will tell you that 5G is too dangerous to be implemented so pervasively without further study as to it’s effects.

Woodbury… NY neighbors fuming over the placement of 22 cell repeaters for Verizon in front of homes
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby DrEvil » Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:48 pm

Karmamatterz » Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:25 pm wrote:
The Easter attacks were of a different scale, and the swift decision by the government to act against the social networks placed them in a different category—that is, the authorities were essentially saying that the social networks are no longer considered tools that can be abused by bad actors to exacerbate tensions but weapons that must be removed from terrorists immediately.


Only if it was so simple to define "hate speech."

Why not include the postal mail and all publishing in this discussion? Let's really clamp down in lockstep fascist fashion. No where in the article does it say how words can actually physically kill a person.

https://www.wired.com/story/like-guns-s ... -regulated


Go into a crowded place with limited exits and shout "BOMB! HE'S GOT A BOMB!" and watch people get trampled to death.

Voila, you just killed someone with words.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 3971
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby norton ash » Wed Nov 20, 2019 9:03 pm

I prefer the old version of dangerous free speech ... shouting 'movie' in a crowded firehouse.
Zen horse
User avatar
norton ash
 
Posts: 4067
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Restoring Internet Freedom"

Postby chump » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:32 pm

Via Prof. James Tracy:

https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/sta ... 0220465152

Huge news! @ChildrensHD just filed its lawsuit to force the
@FCC to halt the deployment of #5G, and to force Big Telecom to show that its mandated, zero liability product is safe. A big thanks to Dafna Tachover for her incredible work in helping to make this happen!

[… con’d]


——————



https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 97876.html

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s Children's Health Defense Submitted Historic Case Against U.S. Government for Wireless Harms

CHD Chairman, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., will lead the legal team with seasoned telecommunications and administrative law attorney Scott McCollough.


NEWS PROVIDED BY
Children's Health Defense
Feb 03, 2020, 14:12 ET

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Children's Health Defense (CHD) is leading a historic legal action against the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for its refusal to review their 25 year old guidelines, and to promulgate scientific, human evidence-based radio frequency emissions ("RF") rules that adequately protect public health from wireless technology radiation. The Petition contends the agency's actions are capricious and not evidence-based. The Petition was filed on 2/2/2020 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Petitioners include parents of children injured by wireless devices, a mother whose son died from a brain tumor from cell tower exposure, physicians who see the epidemic of sickness in their clinics and Professor David Carpenter, a renowned scientist.

"This action represents the first time in 25 years that we finally can expose the FCC fecklessness in court, and give those who have been injured by the FCC's disregard for human health a voice," says Dafna Tachover, CHD's Director of Stop 5G & Wireless Harms.

In 1996, the FCC, responsible for regulating the safety of wireless technology, adopted guidelines which only protect consumers from thermal levels of wireless harm, ignoring substantial evidence of profound harms from non-thermal levels. The FCC hasn't reviewed its guidelines since, despite clear scientific evidence and growing rates of RF related sickness

In 2012, the General Accountability Office published a report recommending that the FCC re-assess its guidelines. As a result, in 2013, the FCC opened docket 13-84 asking for public comment. Despite overwhelming evidence in support of new rules submitted by hundreds of individuals and scientists, the FCC did nothing. On December 4, 2019, the FCC closed the docket and affirmed the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment. CHD's action challenges that FCC decision.

The FCC's obsolete guidelines and the false sense of safety they provide enabled the uncontrolled proliferation of wireless technology and the ongoing deployment of 5G, which will exponentially increase exposure to this harmful radiation. 

CHD is a non-profit organization dedicated to ending the epidemic of children's chronic health conditions. The organization recognizes that wireless technology radiation is a contributing factor to the exponential increase in sickness among children.


*more links at original.
User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests